Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801794
Original file (MD0801794.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-, USMC
Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request
Application Received: 20080826
Characterization of Service Received:
Narrative Reason for Discharge:
Authority for Discharge: MARCORSEPMAN

Applicant’s Request: Characterization change to:
                  Narrative Reason change to:

Summary of Service

Prior Service:
Inactive: USMCR (DEP) 20010531 - 20020616                Active:

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Enlistment: 20020617    Age at Enlistment:            
Period of E nlistment : Years Months    
Date of Discharge: 20021122 H ighest Rank:
Length of Service : Y ea rs M on ths 05 D a ys     
Education Level: AFQT: 63
MOS: 9900                
Proficiency/Conduct M arks (# of occasions): ( ) / ( ) Fitness R eports:

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214): Rifle

Periods of UA / CONF : NJP: NONE SCM: SPCM: CC:

Retention Warning Counseling :

         - 20021106 : For your diagnosed personality disorder.

Types of Documents Submitted/reviewed

 Related to Military Service:
DD 214:      Service / Medical Record: Other Records:

Related to Post-Service Period:  
         Employment:                        Finances:                          Education /Training :     
         Health/Medical Records:           Substance Abuse:                           Criminal Records:       
         Family/Personal Status:                   Community Service:                References:              
Additional Statements :
From Applicant:         From Representat ion :   From Congress member :

Other Documentation :
                  -Medical information sheets.
Pertinent Regulation/Law

 A Paragraph 6203.3 CONVENIENCE OF THE GOVERNMENT, of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16F), effective 1 September 2001 until Present .

B. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part II, Para 211, Regularity of Government Affairs , Part V, Para 502, Propriety and Para 503, Equity .


DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB)
DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT

Applicant’s Issues

 1. Reenlistment opportunities.
2. Misdiagnosed with personality disorder
3. Prematurely discharged.
4. Post-service conduct.

Decision


 Date: 20 08 1211   Location: Washington D.C .        R epresentation :

By a vote of the Characterization shall .
By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall PERSONALITY DISORDER .
Discussion

 : either which the Board cannot form the basis of relief for the Applicant, or the Board does not have the authority to grant the relief for which the Applicant petitioned. The Applicant is directed to the Addendum , specifically the paragraph concerning , regarding this Issue.
The Applicant should be aware that, with respect to non - service-related administrative matters, i.e., VA benefits, educational pursuits, and especially civilian employment, an “U ncharacterized ” separation is considered the equivalent of an “H onorable ” or “G eneral ( U nder H onorable C onditions) ” discharge. Furthermore, the use of “Uncharacterized” discharges is required in all cases for Marines discharged within the first 180 days of active duty service unless that Marine’s service was either clearly deserving of an “Honorable” discharge or the discharge was due to misconduct. The NDRB considered the Applicant’s other issues, as discussed below, to determine if an upgrade to his discharge is warranted.

: ( ) . The Applicant contends he is entitled to a discharge upgrade due to his misdiagnosis with a personality disorder and his premature discharge . Specifically, he contends the medication prescribed to him prevented him from sleeping , which led to his difficulties in the military . In reviewing discharges, the Board presumes regularity in the conduct of Government affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include evidence submitted by the Applicant. The record of evidence clearly states the Applicant was diagnosed by competent medical authority with Hallucinogen Persistent Perceptual Disorder and Antisocial Borderline Personality Disorder and was found unsuitable for continued service. Furthermore, the Applicant’s medical record shows the Applicant admitted to a long history of wrongful use of drugs including marijuana, acid, illegal mushrooms, ecstasy, uppers, downers, cocaine, LSD, Valium, Klopenin, Darvocet, Hyd r oco done, Oxycontin, and Mepergan which was not properly disclosed prior to enlistment. The NDRB rejects the Applicant’s contention his discharge was due to sleep problems; it was clearly based on substance withdrawal problems as a result of substance abuse, as well as diagnosed a ntisocial behavior. The NDRB determined the awarded discharge characterization was appropriate, and an upgrade would be inappropriate.

: ( ) . The Applicant contends he is entitled to a discharge upgrade due to his post-service conduct. The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. However , there is no law or regulation which provides a discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in the civilian life subsequent to leaving the service. Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the Applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review, is considered during Board reviews . Documentation to help support a post service conduct upgrade includes, but is not limited to: a verifiable continuous employment record ; documentation of educational pursuits ; documentation of community or church service ; certification of non-involvement with civil authorities ; evidence of financial stability or letters of good standing from banks, credit card companies, or other financial institutions; documentation of a drug-free lifestyle; and

character witness statements. The Applicant is advised that completion of these items alone does not guarantee the upgrade of an unfavorable discharge, as each discharge is reviewed by the Board on a case by case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate previous in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member’s overall character.

While the Board commends the Applicant for his efforts, they need to be more encompassing and should be completely documented. The Applicant could have produced additional evidence as stated in the above paragraph with the full understanding completion of these items alone does not guarantee an upgrade. The Board determined the characterization of service received, “ Uncharacterized ”, was an appropriate characterization considering the time served and the valid diagnosis with personality disorders. An upgrade founded upon post-service conduct would be inappropriate.

After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Record, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found


ADDENDUM: Information for the Applicant

 Complaint Procedures : If you believe that the decision in your case is unclear, not responsive to the issues you raised, or does not otherwise comport with the decisional document requirements of DoD Instruction 1332.28, you may submit a complaint in accordance with Enclosure (5) of that Instruction to the Joint Service Review Activity, OUSD (P&R) PI-LP, The Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-4000 . You should read Enclosure (5) of the Instruction before submitting such a complaint. The complaint procedure does not permit a challenge of the merits of the decision; it is designed solely to ensure that the decisional documents meet applicable requirements for clarity and responsiveness. You may view DoD Instruction 1332.28 and other Decisional Documents by going online at “ http://Boards.law.af.mil . ”

Additional Reviews : Subsequent to a document review, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provi ded the application is received at the NDRB within 15 years from the date of discharge. The Applicant can provide documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments or any additional evidence related to this discharge. Representation at a personal appearance hearing is recommended but not required. If a former member has been discharged for more than 15 years , has already been grante d a personal appearance hearing or has otherwise exhausted his opportunities before the NDRB, the Applicant may petition the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR), 2 Navy Annex, Washington, DC 20370-5100 for further review.

 Service Benefits: The Veterans Administration determines eligibility for post-service benefits, not the Naval Discharge Review Board. There is no requirement or law that grants recharacterization solely on the issue of obtaining Veterans' benefits and this issue does not serve to provide a foundation upon which the Board can grant relief.
Employmen t / Educational Opportunities : The Board has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing employment or educational opportunities. Regulations limit the Board’s review to a determination of the propriety and equity of the discharge.

Reenlistment/RE-code: Since the NDRB has no jurisdiction over reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into the Navy, Marine Corps, or any other of the Armed Forces, the NDRB is not authorized to change a reenlistment code. Only the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) can make changes to reenlistment codes. Additionally, the Board has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing reenlistment opportunities. An unfavorable “RE” code is, in itself, not a bar to reenlistment. A request for a waiver can be submitted during the processing of a formal application for reenlistment through a recruiter.
Medical Conditions and Misconduct : DoD disability regulations do not preclude a disciplinary separation. Appropriate regulations stipulate that separations for misconduct take precedence over potential separations for other reasons. Whenever a member is being processed through the Physical Evaluation Board, and subsequently is processed for an administrative involuntary separation or is referred to a court-martial fo r misconduct, the disability evaluation is suspended. The Physical Evaluation Board case remains in suspense pending the outcome of the non-disability proceedings. If the action includes either a punitive or administrative discharge for misconduct, the medical board report is filed in the member’s terminated health record. Additionally, the NDRB does not have the authority to change a narrative reason for separation to one indicating a medical disability or other medical related reasons. ” Only the Board for Correction of Naval Records can grant this type of narrative reason change.
Automatic Upgrades - There is no law or regulation, which provides that an unfavorable discharge may be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in civilian life subsequent to leaving Naval service. The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the Applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review. Examples of documentation that may be provided to the Board include proof of educational pursuits, verifiable employment records, documentation of community service, credible evidence of a substance free lifestyle and certification of non-involvement with civil authorities.

Issues Concerning Bad-Conduct Discharges (BCD ) – Because relevant and material facts stated in a court-martial specification are presumed by the NDRB to be established facts, issues relating to the Applicant’s innocence of charges for which he was found guilty cannot form a basis for relief. With respect to a discharge adjudged by a special court-martial, the action of the NDRB is restricted to upgrades based on clemency. Clemency is an act of leniency that reduces the severity of the punishment imposed. The NDRB does not have the jurisdictional authority to review a discharge or dismissal resulting from a general court-martial.

Board Membership: The names and votes of the members of the Board are recorded on the original of this document and may be obtained from the service records by writing to:

 Secretary of the Navy Council of Review Boards
 Attn: Naval Discharge Review Board
 720 Kennon Street SE Rm 309
 Washington Navy Yard DC 20374-5023

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0800024

    Original file (ND0800024.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board determined an upgrade was not warranted.The Applicant should be aware that, with respect to nonservice-related administrative matters, i.e., VA benefits, educational pursuits, and especially civilian employment, an uncharacterized separation is considered the equivalent of an honorable or general (under honorable conditions) discharge.After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Medical and Service Record Entries, Discharge...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2007_Navy | ND0700459

    Original file (ND0700459.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Medical and Service Record Entries, and Discharge Process, the Board found that Dissenting Opinion One board member voted to change the characterization to honorable based on the Applicant’s evaluation marks, overall performance and clear diagnosis of personality disorder. ” Additional Reviews : Subsequent to a document review, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing,...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0800611

    Original file (ND0800611.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Types of Documents SubmittedRelated to Military Service: DD 214: Service and/or Medical Record: Other Records: Related to Post-Service Period: Employment: Finances: Education/Training: Health/Medical Records: Substance Abuse: Criminal Records: Family/Personal Status: Community Service: References: Additional Statements From Applicant: From Representation: From Member of Congress: Other Documentation (Describe) DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0800741

    Original file (ND0800741.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    [Extracted from CO’s message in case file].Applicant incurred DUI/DWI and alcohol related incident after having received Level I treatment that resulted from a previous DUI/DWI. The evidence of post service conduct while commendable did not provide a basis to change the narrative reason.Based on the foregoing evidence, the Board found the Applicant was properly discharged and determined a change in the narrative reason would be inappropriate.After a thorough review of the available...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801204

    Original file (MD0801204.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant should be aware completion of these items alone does not guarantee an upgrade from an unfavorable discharge as each discharge is reviewed by the Board on a case-by-case basis to determine if post service conduct mitigates the reason for the characterization of discharge. Again, the Board determined an upgrade or change would be inappropriate.After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Record, Discharge Process and evidence...

  • USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801806

    Original file (MD0801806.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.Diagnosis with personality disorder not correct. After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Record, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found ADDENDUM: Information for the Applicant Complaint Procedures : If you believe that the decision in your case is unclear, not responsive to the issues...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801053

    Original file (ND0801053.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1.Medical condition interfered with performance of duties Decision Date: 20080828Location: Washington D.C. ” Additional Reviews : Subsequent to a document review, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the application is received at the NDRB within 15 years from the date of discharge. Additionally, the NDRB does not have the authority to change a...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0800371

    Original file (ND0800371.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant should be aware completion of these items alone does not guarantee an upgrade from an unfavorable discharge as each discharge is reviewed by the Board on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service conduct mitigates the reason for the characterization of discharge. Pursuant to MILPERSMAN 1910-122, members discharged on the basis of a Personality Disorder should receive and “Honorable ” unless a “General (Under Honorable) ” is warranted based on the members overall...

  • USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0901506

    Original file (MD0901506.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Regulations limit the NDRB’s review to a determination of the propriety and equity of the discharge.Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record entries and discharge process, the Board found Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall and the narrative reason for separation shall remain .The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing for a period of fifteen years from the date of discharge. ...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0800610

    Original file (ND0800610.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    After a complete review of the entire record, including the evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board determined that the discharge was appropriate and that the evidence of post-service conduct was found not to mitigate the conduct which precipitated the discharge.In reviewing discharges, the Board presumes regularity in the conduct of Government affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include evidence submitted by the Applicant. ” Additional...